Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about
#reviseandresubmit

Most recents (4)

RE: skepticism about rejecting ballot on the basis that goal of further #USSstrike action is unclear or unreasonable. Yes we have obtained a process. But that process could be vastly improved with just 2 small tweaks that cost UUK nothing if they are operating in good faith... 1/

1) clarify timescale. Be explicit about what happens in April 2019 if JEP fail to reach a conclusion. @MikeOtsuka has given us his best guess but UUK can confirm. Committing to process as outlined opens possibility of deadlock. We must know what happens if this is the case...2/

2) Or, if as @JeanFind suggests there is scope to influence current valuation, this should be explicit in the text, confirmed by both UUK & UCU... 3/

In the spirit of #reviseandresubmit I have updated my earlier flowchart on our options in the @ucu ballot to try to reflect some of the discussions that followed the previous version. As before this is my personal interpretation of info collected by others and is not necessarily

accurate or complete. It has become more complicated than the previous version. Remember, it is important that we each arm ourselves with a range of evidence and opinions and not rely on any single source or apparent Twitter sage (especially me - I'm no expert here). #USSstrike

For transparency, I am currently leaning strongly towards #RejectUUKdeal as it stands, so while I have tried to be neutral I cannot guarantee that I have been - i'm only human after all. Although Twitter tests me on that from time to time. @cardiffucu@ucu@UCL_UCU@USSbriefs

I do not think the paper that was put forward (which recommended a consultation with members) needed to be incompatible with all 5 motions that fell, especially the one I argued for on #ReviseandResubmit b/c I believe there was time to include R+R in the process. Chair disagreed.

Here's the #ReviseandResubmit motion I proposed to HEC. I moved it arguing it seemed clear from observing Branch Delegates mtg that a *huge* no of members were asking for some form of R+R & not to discuss would have been a dereliction of our duty to represent members.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that all feedbacks from votes from union branches show demands for substantial amendments to the proposal (ranging for asking institutional guarantees with TPR/USS to a full #NoDetriment clause). I of course fully agree with these demands. 1/9

However pls do not get distracted from the real shit that is happening in the backstage: an intentionally vague proposal has been written by UUK (never discussed by the union negociators who saw it 1h before) and released unilaterally last Friday evening. 2/9

It was then backed up immediately by Sally Hunt, with no guarantees in this proposal AND with the trick of pushing for an e-ballot to the members on this very text. The whole trap is here. 3/9